Slashdot Mirror
Tech Industry To Hollywood: Slow Down, Camper
negativethirsty wrote to us with a story here at Wired, most of the tech industry heads sent a letter to the motion picture studios, with a nod towards the US Senate. Basically, the tech industry does not want SSSCA to be pased, and want to work out a "technically feasible, cost effective solution" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form.
It's sad that someone has to post such a thing as an AC in fear of being mod-bombed into oblivion for praising Microsoft.
Such is the way of the Slashdot mentality.
Roadkill is yummy.
It says: yes, "chief executives of IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Intel and five other corporations said they were eager to work with Hollywood to find "technically feasible, cost effective solutions" for protecting entertainment delivered in digital form".
It also says "America's largest and most powerful tech firms have agreed on one point: Keep Congress far away from digital content standards."
This is not "ganging up on the consumers", it's "ganging up" on congress to make them stay out of this. Sure, they're brown-nosing media companies ("look, we want to protect your copyrights just as much as you do") but the important message is that they want to decide for themselves how to do it. And if there isn't any legislation in place, some other people (Linux developers, say) can do things their way and ditch DRM altogether if they want.
So it's good.
I think.
Not terribly bad, anyway, the way you make it sound.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Why restrict it to just protecting "entertainment" content? If digital rights management is to be introduced then should every file creator and copyright owner, not just entertainment corporations, not have the right to set the "digital rights"? While, personally, I do not like the idea of mandatory "rights management", if it is to be forced on us should we not campaign for a system which everyone can use to their advantage?
For example, self erasing emails were discussed on Slashdot a short while ago. A properly implemented digital rights management system could enable this by the originator setting a mandatory expiry date and setting the "no archive, no cut 'n' paste, no print" permissions on the email. Or a document sent (electronically) to a company could have "rights" set so that it could be viewed within the recipient company, but not forwarded outside that company.
Albert Einstein (Scientist, Socialist)
To me, this is a classic battle between AOL/Time Warner/SUN vs. Microsoft/Intel. I find it quite interesting that it is the Microsoft side that seems to be advocating a rational solution to digital media content. Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other tech giant now that restricting the free flow of digital media is detrimental to all. In this case, go Microsoft! Suns and AOL/Time Warner make a dangerous comibination. It'll be a cold day in hell if i ever you Java again especially considering the Apache situation.
Cynics: You often complain about big business buying congress off, however those arguments are often about paying politicians to NOT act. To NOT pass tobacco laws, or clean air restrictions. Big business is often hampered by the laws that control them, they would rather find a solution of their own so that they can control it.
Congress only passes laws when they think it will get them votes. For some reason, juveniles and anarchists stealing bad TV shows isn't a 'hot topic' with John Q. Public.
Whenever this argument comes up, I'm met with quiet frustration. File sharing isn't going away, the execs are still too busy drooling over the hype.
Suckers: You seem entirely secure in your belief that nothing can happen to disseminate the free trade of information. In the late 90s new laws were passed that extended copyright laws another two decades for the sole reason of giving entertainment czars like Disney and Time Warner a new lease on their oldest properties. If these laws had failed, the very first of their films and books would have become public domain.
A few years ago, an author published a book that told the story of a slave in the movie Gone With the Wind. This book was quickly thrown to the mud and censored out of existence with the force and efficiency of a nuclear bomb. GWtW is a timeless classic that is over 70 years old. A part of our American heritage, yet the rights to it remain in the control of a handful of people. It has been re-released exactly once in the last twenty years, and even then it took a TV special to push it into the public eye enough to justify it. The actors from the movie are mostly dead, as are most of the crew; Yet, the studio will keep this film forever buried because (wait for it) free entertainment isn't profitable.
Digital distribution is a flashy magician's assistant: It steals attention from the real robbery of ideas that happens every single day.
The studios know they only have everything to gain by the rapid distribution of NEW media. As long as kids are sucking down Britney Spears on Limewire (and you know this appeals mostly to the younger generation when I say that) Britney sells more tickets. The hype is what keeps their lawyers on camera.
Whenever this argument comes up, I'm met with quiet frustration. File sharing isn't going away, the execs are still too busy drooling over the hype.
is that Apple had been using the slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn." when it introduced the CD-RW iMacs, complete with a contingent of musicians ranging from Barry White to Smashmouth to Propellerheads and tons of others all playing up how great it is to be able to take your CDs and make custom mixes. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you'd be hard pressed to find an artist that has not, at some point, made a mix CD. It's already been shown that the record companies have been skimping the artists on royalties for the new Napster-like service that is licensed ... when will they realize that they're not necessarily ENTITLED to make billions of dollars a year each, and that the masses will do whatever we want to do?
If these ludicrous copyright measures actually go into effect, and all of our movies and cd's are made proprietary and married to special hardware, what will happen to the companies who have been making bank off of CD-RW component and disc sales? Will Roxio have to recode Toast or Easy CD Creator to not copy any commercially pressed CD?
Personally I'll be wiling to bet that even if this DOES get passed, we won't see a fervent enforcement. 3/4 of the cops out there are swapping music i bet. It'll be like getting a speeding ticket, and also be as common (and EXPECTED) as speeding. Not that that means its OK if it DOES pass, it'll be a seriously blow to individual rights, but I don't think they'll put anybody in prison for it.
"Who gives a fuck about a goddamn Grammy?"
- Public Enemy, Terminator X to the Edge of Panic, 1988
"Caught, now in court 'cuz I stole a beat, this is a samplin' sport [ ... ] ?"
- Public Enemy, "Caught, can I get a witness?", 1988.
("Caught" was specifically about RIAA lawsuits and the sampling controversy of the early 90s. Way to go, RIAA, your policies on sampling nearly killed rap and early electronica/techno in its tracks. How much of your revenue stream do you owe to those genres now? And how much do you get from gouging people who still try to sample?)
Side note to Chuck D - if you ever this, working the guitar riff from KMFDM's "Godlike" into "She Watch Channel Zero" was one of the weirdest, and coolest, things I've ever heard. Loved it.
> This is what I see happening if this bill gets passed:
>
> -Widespread civil disobeience to the degree that somehow, sometime, they finally take notice.
"Chillin' in my crib, cold video-dubbin',
FBI warnin', huh, don't mean nothin',
They call that shit a crime, yo, that shit's a joke
Hit 'record' on my dope remote."
- Ice-T, ca. 1990.
>- A wide and growing division of artists from the mainstream, where the Net finally becomes a mainstream place to purchase music or a secondary "rogue" recording industry develops that is more sympathetic to consumers rights and wants. I'm not a huge rap fan, but I have to admit they've known about RIAA and MPAA from Day One.
Agreed on both your outcomes. Is it any wonder why Chuck D kicks the ass of RIAA every chance he gets to testify?
Anyway, the speech made clear to me that we are arriving at the most revisionist moment in history since writing was restricted to the priesthood. That's right, that speech at the Grammys was the most culturally backward moment in 3500 years. Sure, that sounds extreme, but consider this; in the year 3000, do you really believe that digital rights management is going to be a cornerstone of culture? And do you honestly think they'll be able to look backwards at 2001 and say "Thank god they stopped that Napster or we wouldn't have survived!" We are actually being asked to cripple the foundations of the technological future so that a small band of carnies i mean executives can keep their jobs holding the keys to the gilded cage where they keep Lars Ulrich.
No, pull the band-aid. Hard. Steal all the music you can and see what happens. It'll hurt for a minute, and then you'll see how much better everything is. All technology is theft; theft of power from above. Ever heard of Prometheus? It's trickery to get the power of the gods. So we found a powerful new fire and Rosen and Valenti are doing their best to say in booming voices "Put that back! Only the priesthood may hold an uncovered flame! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Hollywood really is overrun with Communists...think about it for a moment.
Within the context of entertainment and information media, they want to introduce a centrally-controlled system that dictates how and when individuals access information...an artificial demand system. There will be no free market because there will be no choice. Dissidents will be fined and jailed.
As a side-effect of introducing this system of control, the "entertainment industry" will effectively have control over the flow of information, too, by locking out independent producers of entertainment and information. Thus, the only media you will be able to receive will be "official" media. Again, disidents will be fined and jailed.
When it's all said and done, the SSSCA will turn the American entertainment & news industry (encompassing both mainstream & independents) into a Communist system...backed by the US Government, no less.
The SSSCA is unAmerican, undemocratic, freedom-hating Communism, plain and simple.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
That's exactly the issue. The market (I.E. We consumers) have amply demonstrated to the RIAA and others that we *do not* want their digital services. We have also demonstrated that we *do not* want to pay their high prices. That is why people are turning away from purchasing CDs and moving instead to other avenues (legal and illegal).
When Hillary Rosen says that she had a bad year what she means is not that the RIAA lost money far from it. What she means is that they are no longer growing. CD sales are back to the levels they were at in 1998 which is less than last year to be sure but, in a sagging economy, no big supprise.
What they are trying to do with the SSSCA is circumvent the market by putting into place legal requirements for us (the consumers) to adopt technologies that we have rejected, or at least embraced only slightly, (the RIAA controlled download sites) thus far. If this law passes then the control technology and the pay-services that they wish to mandate can go into effect because they will be the only legal ways to do it. And then they can keep their plush offices.
Many posts here argue along the lines that "people buy computer gear for entertainment, the entertainment industry will only produce stuff for gear that has DRM, ergo companies who produce DRM hardware will sell more hardware than those that don't". Well they got one bit right. It is all about money, and I don't doubt that if the hardware people thought they could make more money by selling DRM gear, they would.
But they don't think that. They think the reverse. There are several good reasons for this:
The hardware companies aren't stupid. They know which side their bread is buttered on. They will oppose DRM all the way. Not for altruistic reasons, but for the very same reasons the entertainment industry wants DRM - they will make more money without it.